INDARAPU POCHAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, various extents of house sites along with structures situated in Sy.No.741, Manthani Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to the petitioners have been acquired by the respondents and Awards dated 24.06.2010 in proceedings No.B/885/2006 have been passed by the 2nd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, TSGENCO, Manthani, Karimnagar District, fixing the compensation at Rs.1,85,714.00 per acre on the basis of random determination of market value. While determining the market value, the 2nd respondent did not consider the prevailing market value of the property in the vicinity, which includes open land and the structures thereon. The petitioners received the compensation amount under protest. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent did not issue valid notice as required under Sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity "the Act") and the basis for determination of compensation is not intimated to them. It is also their grievance that the 2nd respondent did not grant any interest on the compensation amount and also on solatium. The 2nd respondent also did not consider the material and construction costs attached to the property, besides not considering the charges relating to the transportation of the material. The petitioners allege that as per the prevailing market value in the vicinity, the subject land is fetching Rs.500.00 per square yard and Rs.50,000.00 per gunta and Rs.6,00,000.00 per acre. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed objections on 08.07.2010 before the 2nd respondent requesting to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Act for determination of just compensation as per the market value. As there was no response, the petitioners have filed another representation dated 16.07.2011 and the same is also pending. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are all illiterates and could not pursue the remedies available under law. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.2, admitting the fact of acquisition of the lands of the petitioners and passing of Awards dated 24.06.2010 fixing the compensation at Rs.1,85,714.00 per acre, by considering the land value and structures value, separately, besides fixing 12% additional value on land and structures from the date of the Notification till the date of Award i.e., from 22.06.2008 to 21.06.2010 and also the fact of the petitioners receiving the compensation without protest. It is also stated that prior to disbursement of compensation, notices under Sec. 12(2) of the Act were issued to all the interested persons, whose lands were sought to be acquired and since the Award was passed within two years from the date of Notification, the payment of interest on the amount of compensation as well as on solatium does not arise. It is further stated that the compensation was paid as per the estimated value after considering the material cost and construction charges and that the transportation charges will not come under land acquisition process and it comes under the R & R package. It is further stated that the petitioners have not filed any application under Sec. 18 of the Act for referring the matters to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation and, as such, the question of referring the matters to the Civil Court does not arise and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

(3.) A common reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners reiterating the contents in the writ affidavit and also stating that the petitioners received the amount of compensation under protest vide consolidated voucher in Lr.No.B/885/2006-2, dated 08.09.2010 pursuant to the Award dated 24.06.2010. It is also stated that a further representation dated 01.02.2016 was made under proper acknowledgement of the respondents in view of misplacement of the original record pertaining to the individual applications dated 08.07.2010 and 16.07.2011 of the petitioners and hence sought to allow the writ petitions.